POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

.J C-PTbS-03-o{

.,;

Advances in
Estimating Gas wen Deliverability
..!
By A. G. WINESTOCK and G. P. COLPITTS"

,.
(16th A.nnllal Technical Alee-ting, The Pel1"oleum Society of C./.ll!., Calgary, 11fay? 1965)

ABSTRACT

';

In the past, drawdown tests to estimate well delh"erability and diagnose wellbore damage, although simple in
themselves, have been of limited "alue, often because it is
inconvenient or costly to obtain the constant f10'\' rate required to analyze them reliably. This paper presents a
new drawdown analysis technique developed with the aid
of a digital gas-well simulator_ The new method does not
require a constant rate, is as simple to analyze as the
conventional method and is considerabl:r more accurate.
It can thus he used in gas wells to analyze the early time
data from a back-pressure test when the rate has not yet
"stabilized" to a constant \'alue. The new technique takes
into account turbulent flow in gas-well systems - a pre~
requisite to calculating a gas well's current and potential
delive:rability_ These calculations are easier if at least two
drawdown tests, and preferabl}', more, can be conducted
on the gas ,,,-elL Fortunately, the practice of running a
multiplicity of drawdown tests is already embodied in the
four-point isochronal AOF test, where each flow test is
separated from the_ others by a sufficiently long period
of shut-in. This type of test lends itself to reliable drawdown analysis. However, in the four-point flow-afterflow test, where the flows at each rate are consecutive,
the deliverabilit} estimates often are not reliable_
The new drawdown technique is not limited to use in
gas wells. It can also be used to estimate well producti"it:y and diagnose wellbore damage in oil or water
systems.

INTRODUCTION

is differen~

AS flow in a porous medium

from
G
oil or water flow in that it does not obey the
Dai'cy Law. In the gas-reservoIr-engineering litera-

-,

ture (I), this difference is now commonly called "turbl:llence_" Turbulence occurs because the low viscosity
of gas (compared to that of oil or water) results in
correspondingly higher gas velocities under a given
pressure gradient. At these higher velocities, the gas
suffers inertial energ,Y losses as well as the usual
viscous euergy (Darcy) loss_ This energy loss changes
th,~ relationship between gas veIocit}r and pressure
gradient from linear, as in Darcy flow, to non-linear.
Turbulence is greatest in the vicinity of the wellbore,
where velocities are large_ Thus, it gives rise to an
extra pl-eSSUl'e drop around the well - an effect similar to that of wellbore damage.
The dependence of gas viscosity and density on
pressure introduces a second non-linearity into gasflow theor}r_ At anyone time, these parameters will
vary throughout a reservoir across which pressure
gradients have been impressed. In addition, the pressure at any point will change with progressive depletion.
Technology, July ~ S~ptember, 1965, Montreal

These non-linearities are important because they

result in a differential equation of gas flow which
is corresponding!}r non-linear and which has no kno,,\-Tn
general anal}rtical solution.
The objective of this paper is to examine approximate solutions to this differential equation and, using these, to evaluate methods for testing gas wells in
order to determine reservoir characteristics_ Each of
the next two sections deals with one of these solutions. The first describes a digital model which accurately simulates flow in a gas-well system by solviug the non-linear difference equation numerically.
The secop.d describes the Houpeurt equation, an approximate pressure-flow-rate relation for unsteadystate radial gas flow_ This equation provides a basis
for calculating re,servoir characteristics from well
tests_
The accuracy of reservoir characteristics calculated
from the Houpeul"t equation can be checked by means
of simulated field data generated with the gas-well
simulator, whose reservoir properties are knmirn_ The
ensuing two sections of the paper then use this procedure to explore the accuracy of the conventional
method of drawdown test analysis and present an improved drawdown analysis technique, referred to as
the normalized method. Follo,ving this, a recommended
field testing procedure is outlined, in terms of which
the current testing practices, such as isochronal and
flow-after-flow tests, are evaluated_ Finally, application of the normalized drawdown method to oil and
,"vater wells is discussed brief!}r.

,
"

~;

f' -

> -:,

THE DIGITAL GAS-WELL SmULAToR

The gas-well simulator is a digital computer progl-am which simulates the flow of gas through the
reservoir and into a well. The program solves the nonlinear difference equation for one-dimensional unsteady-state gas flow in a porous medium. It also
solves the pressure-rate relationships which describe
flow in the production string. Its main features are
listed below:
(a) _ Flow in the reservoir is single-phase, unsteadystate, radial and horizontal.
(b). Permeability and pOl'osity can vary radially
throughout the system.
(c). Flow includes turbulence, and the turbulence factor can vary radially throughout the system,
(d), Gas viscosity and density are continuous functions of pressure.

"Impe>';al Oil Ltd., Calgary, Alta.

111

,,. ..

.'

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

'Veil radius and external radius of drainage can

be specified.
(f) . Tubing and casing dimensions and productionstring lengths can be specified.
( g). A large variety of well-boundary conditions can
be imposed in succession, as follows:
(e).

(i) Constant or variable bottom-hole rate

(ii I Constant or variable bottom-hole pressure
(iii) Constant or variable wellhead rate, including zero

CONVENTIONAL DRAWDOWN METHOD

The conventional drawdown method yields a permeability-thickness product. It is based on the fact
that, by Equation (1), which assumes a constant rate,
a plot of P,:: - p",/ versus log t results in a straight
line. From the slope per logarithmic cycle of this plot,
the permeability-thickness product can be calculated:

mte (wellhead shut-in with after-flow)

(21

mdft

(i \' ) Constant or variablE! wellhead pressure

(\')

Flow through a wellhead critical-flow prover of specified size.

(h 1. BOllndal"}' conditions at the external radius of

drainage can also be imposed in succession, as
follows:
(i) Constant or variable reservoir I"ate
(ii) Constant or variable. reservoir pressure.

Simulator cases were nm on both the IBM 7090

at the University of TOl'onto and the IBI\'l 7044 at the
Calgary Data Centre.
The gas-well simulator accurately approximates onedimensional radial gas f1m\', but it provides no simplified algebraic expression of pressure-flow-rate relationships. One such simplified expression is described
in the following sectioll.

where In = slope per lo~aritillnic c~'c1c from

fl

plot of

(n~

p..,2 \

vc;, In,C;loL

The kh product is an important reservoir parameter. Its role in determining deliverability and the
degree of wellbore damage or improvement is discussed later.
Equation (1) has been written for a well producing
at a constant rate. In practice, it is often diffic.ult to
establish a constant rate during a flow test. As shown
later with the conventional drawLlown method, a variation in rate of only a fraction of a per cent throughout a test can result in highl)r erroneous kh values,
because the variation being considered in Pl~ - p.j
can be of the same order of magnitude. The next section describes a new drawdown analysis method which
a voids this difficult~.

THE HOUPEURT UNSTEADY-STATE EQUATION

NOR::IoIALIZED DRAWDOWN iVIETHOD

In 1959, Houpeurt (2) presented an equation that

pl"Ovides an empirical basis for calculating reservoir
characteristics from well tests. The Houpeurt equation
incorporates turbulence in an approximate solution
to the unsteady-state radial flow of gas into a well
producing at a constant rate. As originally presented,
the equation describe.:; gas density at the ,'vellbore.
Expressed in terms of pressure J the relation is

To account for variations in rate, we developed il

new analysis which we call the normalized drawdown
method.O\< It is as simple as the conventional method,
has been ~uccessfully field-tested, has be~n verified
on the ga~-well .simulator and (:~ln be justified theo~
retically.
The normalized drawdO\vn method i~ ba::;ed on Equation ({]) J which describes the drawdown in a gas
' ..' ell flowing at a varying rate. (See App{mdi:r for
theoretical discllssion).

(See Nomenclature for definition of SJrmbols).

This equation assumes that the system is homogeneous, horizontal and of uniform thickness. It also
assume~ that several pl'essure-dependent properties of
the gas (i.e., viscosity. compl'essibility, average pressUL'e) can be l"epresented by some suitably averaged
constant values.
The time-independent nature of the turbulence
term, Bq",~, in Equation (1) deserves special comment.
The term may be included in this form when the rate
throughout the region of turbulence has reached the
\Vellbore rate. As Houpeul't (3) points out, this generally happ~ns quickly, because most of the turbulence
occurs within a very small region around the well, so
that a pressure disturbance can usually mo",,'e through
it in very little time.
It ~hould be pointed out that the turbulence term alWl:l..ys adds to the pressure drop. Equation (1) assumes
that qs is defined a~ positive. If q", is defined as negative, the sign of the turbulence term would also have
to be negative.
In the following section, we will discuss how the
Houpeurt equation is used in calculating reservoir
characteristics from well tests. \Ve will consider its
use fir::.t with the conventional method of drawdown
test analysis, and then with a more reliable technique - the normalized dl'awdown method.
112

Pi- - p"r-.J.ltJ

1-l.24[.l...,zTql'
kh

+ Bq:!.:

(tl

(l)

[II?- lin lo;- O.f[~.1 _)- SI

+ additional

terms

I';')

[n Equation (3), the flow rate, q~(t), is the instantaneous flow rate rather than some average COIlstant value for the test. The additional terms are usually negligible, provided that the changes in rate are
not excessively rapid_ For example. when flowing II
well through a critical-flow prover, the additionl\l
terms are generally .small. \Vhen these term~ are
neglected, Eqlw-tion (3) is eqUivalent to treating qo:
in the Houpeurt equation as the instantaneous flow
rate rather than the average rate. Treating the rate
as a variable makes it nece~sary to "normalize" Equation (3) to obtain a meaningful straight-line plot versus the logarithm of time; i.e., Equation (1,.):
p,2 _

p",!

ttl -

Bq2~ (U

q.(t)

1-l24(L",zT 11/2 (In to

kh

+ 0.809) + 51

til

"\Ve should note that H. J. Ramey, Jr., in solving the.

wellbore unloading problem, has independently derived nn
approach similar to that discussed here (4). He pre~ents
a theoletieal corroboration for one particuim' funetl0nnl
form for changes in rate. In the Appendix to this pnpcy,
we present a theoretical discussion for rate chun~es In
general.
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

--

II

TABLE

,'.

I
DR.~WDOWN

COMPARA:IVE ERRORS BY THE TWO

"

lvlETEODS

Per "enl Err;r in kll !J)'

f(Fi~ -;)2"rh -

Number

-l,h
-

(M,d/D)'

1.. ....
2 ......
3 ......
4 ......
5 ......
6 .....
7 .....
8 .....
9 ......
10 ......
11 .....
12 ......
13 ..
14......
15 ......
16 ......

.0381
.0194
.108
.0763
.285
.404
.00808
.0158
.0381
.0194
.108
.0763
.285
.404
00808
.0158

0.723
0.246
0.0683
0.0321
0.0225
0.00766
0.00213
0.00100
0.0226
0.00768
0.00213
0.00100
1.13
0.3B3
0.106
0.0500

Run

,
J

5."

----

(-;~ --:;2u.r)d

(q, -q,)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Actual

psia:!

!J.!,:zT

(~j2 -02"r12

J:er celt

0.51
0.30
3.3
5.8
3.9
5.~

5.1
5.5
4.0
4.9
-1.4

:e~

cent

0.18
0.20
2.1
0.72.
2.0
1.8
0.07
0.24
0.36
044
1.2

7.3

0.36

0.72
4.6
0.85

2.3
3.2

2.0

kl,

q,

0.04
0.[4

mj-ft

400
400
120
120
40
40
1.200
1,200
400
400
120
120
40
40
1,200
1.200

-_._------------N ;TIn'Jlized Jlfethod

-----Cotweu 1iJf1ul
J\lel!l:;d

With
T!trb'/lence

60
81
88
19
67
3-1
4
9
18
15
38
12
'165
90
1
-2

2
-10
6
6
8
9
3
6
9
5
8
9
5
6
- 6
-9

Bqlt2

Wi(ll!JlIl

Turbulence

p;.2_ p 2I<"f

11
20
16
7
10
9
3
6
9
6
7
8
34
16
- 2
- 5

0.85
0.89
0.23
0.10
0.045
0.008
0.051
0.023
0.099
0.19
0.018
0.008
0.36
0.20
0.81
0.73

.' .

"

,."

~
1,
:~

:~

.,
'J

Thus, a plot of [p,' - p.,'(t) - Bq,'(t)] I q,(t) versus

loglOt )rields a straight line with a slope per log cycle,
m'. The kh product can then be calculated from Equation (5):
1;:1

1=

1637 tLJ;z'T'

m'

."t
m .. -l

(5)

If the turbulence group. B, is not known, then one

can plot [p,' - p.,'(t)]/q,,(t) versus log"t. The slope
per logarithmic cycle, m", is related to the kh product
by Equation (6);
kh =

1637 lJ.~zT

m"

In .ft

(6)

Another way of expressing the effect a changing

rate has on PI: - p.. . r:!' is by assuming that the system
behaves as if the instantaneous rate had been in effect from the start of the test. Theoretically, of
course, PI:!' ~ P,y/ depends on the entire preceding history. The effect of the slightly different rates that
precede the instantaneous rate is incorporated into
the additional terms. At any given moment, the effect
of the difference between the current rate and all preceding rates will have been attenuated! provided that
the rate change is gradual and slight. Actually, however, because the slope rather than the absolute value
is used to calculate kh, the procedure requires only
that the change be gradual, and is not restricted to
. slight changes. 'Vhen the drawdown is used to calculate damage, as will be discussed later, the absolute
value does become important; in this case, the
changes must be slight as well as graduaL
Use of the normalized dl-a,vdown method as part
of a recommended field testing procedure. is discussed later_
Technology, July - September, 1965. Montreal

.'

COMPARIsON OF METHODS

Figw-es lea) and (b), respectively, shm..' a schematic comparison of the drawdown plots for the conventional and the normalized method.
To assess the relative accuracy of the two methcds, sixteen drawdowns were run on the gas-well simulator. The parameters of the system were varied by
using a two~level design-of-experiments approach (5),
and the kh product for each dra\vdown was calculated
bj' the two methods. The calculated kh product was
then compared to the actual value which had been
specified for each simulator run. Table I shows the
errors incurred bJ.r the two methods and the values of
some of the more pertinent parameters in each run.

N~
~

CD

N'i
""
~
0-

N ._
~

"

\~ .-

log r

log

CONVENTIONAL METHOO

NORMALIZED METHOD

(Rote assumed constant)

(Norma Iized for rate changes)

1637,l1gZT
kh"

FignTe 1 (a)

in l

r-

Figme 1 (b)

I.

,i

Figure l_-Drawdown Analysis Jllethods_

113

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

100

0 CONVENTIONAL METHOD

_1-"

eo ~'----Iw

.
01.

NORMALIZED METHOD
NORMALIZED METHOD, WITHOUT

TUR8ULENCE

I 1

1 +-1-I---------ll-----j
~ ::,------- j---tJ-l--c--~ '0 1 J-~_I-"-LLIf---j-----t---t-j
:.'i"

'I

'.

1.1

Ii
i
,

.,

10

TURBULENT 6 ( F")

TOTAL ll,IP")

Figure. 2.-}:..'r/"(Jr.o; in Calculating k1l from Dra.wdowfls.

In Figure 2, the errors of the conventional method

are cumpared to the errors of the normalized method.
As explained earlier, the turbulence group, B, may
not be knuwll. F'igll1'e 2 also shows the errol'S of the
normalized method, but with turbulence neglected.
The elTor~ are plotted as a function of the degree of
turbulence in the s~!stem. The degree of turbulence is
the Quotient of BQI'~ and p,:! - P"I~.
Figure 2 demonstrates that the normalized method
is a distind improvement over the cunventional method_ As can be seen, the c.onventional method can be
very iIHlccunLte throughout the entire range of turbulence. Both theory and simulator runs show that when
the flow raiL declines throughoul a test, and this is
commonly the case, the kh values calculated by the
conventional methoL.l tend to be optimistic. The normalized method is generally much more reliable and, as
the line shows, there is some correlation between
per cent error and degree of turbulence_ 'Vhen the
sixteen runs were analyzed bJ.' the normalized method.
but with turbulence neglected, the enol'S in kh. although still significantly smaller than those of the
conventional method, are generally larger than ,,-hen
turbulence is considered.

, ,
=118

kh

Fig/l}'es 3 4, and 5 present an actual field druwdown test analysis in which the normalized method
would avoid a misinterpretation resulting from the
conventional method,
The corresponding data are
shown in Table II.
Figure :1 is a drawdo\','n plot b3' the conventional
method. Depending on the choice of slope, the caleulaled kh product is either 39 or ll8 rod-ft. If
this were interpreted in the usual mannet. the later time Rlope, corresponding to 118 md-ft, would be
chosen as indicating the undamaged productivity. As
the well's actual productivity is not as high as the
I1H md-ft. would suggest. ami because the annly~ig
inclicate.s damage, the conv~ntional method says that
this well is a prime candidate for stimulation.
Figure 4- is a plot of the same data, using the
normalized method. In this case. there is only one
slope, corresponding to a kh product of 11 md-ft. If
the normalized method without turbulence is used, a~
shown in Figure 5, the resulting kh product is 13 mdit. Thus, the ,veil's low productivity really result~
from a low formation kh and not from damage.
An independent check on these results is pl'ovided
by data from a pressure build-up test. The build-up
yields a kh product of about 12 md-ft., which is in
line with the values calculated by the normalized
method.
A SOUND FIELD TESTlNG PnoceDUllE

Historically, the AOF of a gas well has been an

acc.epteu index of its Quality. However, a~ a meum;
for estimating performance, the AOF plot hali limited
utility and can be misleading. It is limited in thnt
it does not indicate damage, only the well's productivity in its current state. Furthermore, the indication of current productivity that it does give call
be misleading in two respects. First, the true line is a
curve rather than a straight line, so that the extrapolation i.s in error; second. the position of the line
on the plot changes with the degree of stabilization.
A more general approach to estimating delivera1>i1ity is to determine formation kh, skin (wellbore dam-

/4
m

mdfl.'-

..
I

12

0
~

a
~

0.

~
I

'.o.

kh

. 163?PqzT
= m,
~
g
,

lI ll. . . . .
'"

S-

kh =39 md. fl.

'"
I
i Q.Illl.

IO~

Q Illl ll

";:;:

'"

NO'

al

kh=llmdfl

c-

N>

'"

N._

U
~
o.U)

6",
r:.!JNJ.

a
N

l(

8~

'

'"
~ c-

o.
0

0.

kh (conventIonal) 39

a //8

50
TIME (hours)

100

md. II.

10~-----'---;;:20;:;------"'5';:0:-------;;;'0:::0:----=--!20g

10

TIME (hours)

FigtlJ"e 3.-Con1Jenfional Method of A.7lalyzi'ltg

Dl"awdow}l Data.
114

Figure

20

,~.-~Y(Jl"lI/alized l11ethod

200

of .4l1alyzlllg

Dralcdowll Data_
The Journal ot Canadian Petroleum

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

EXAIvIPLE CALCULATIONS FOR ACTUAL FIELD DRAWDOWN TEST

Pi = 3,962 psia

.,

.'

10.0
11.0
16.0
22.0
28.0
34.0
40.0
41.0
44.0
47.0
48.0
52.0
56.0
60
62
64
66.2
68
69
71
77
B3
89
95
101
105
111

P,,-I

Pi~- P:!.wl

psia

psia:!.

age) and turbulence from ''l.. ell tests, as will be outlined shortly_ These parameters can then be used to
calculate deliverability for varying degrees of wellbore
damage or improvement. In addition, deliverability

can be calculated as a function of time and can thus

provide estimates of both short-term and long-range
performance. These deliverability calculations can be
made with Equation (1) for infinite-acting systems.

01I
leI.<
IJ

I.t

II '"

Ii kh = 13

mel fl.

1/

l'<n ~';onvenlionol)

39 8 1/8 mel fr.

0/
10

Mscl/D

q"

8,570
8,300
7,900
7,350
6,900
6,540
6,460
6,400
6,220
6,180
6,100
6.100
5.930
5.530
5.520
5,875
5,875
5,804
5,620
5,567
5,567
5,412
5,342
5,210
5,142
5,142
5,1-12

1,370
1,435
1,552
1,719
1,869
1,999
2,045
2,074
2.141
2.166
2.199
2.207
2,277
2.442
2,445
2,295
2,294
2.334
2.416
2,444
2,444
2,515
2,549
2,619
2,660
2.660
2,660

50

Q,

(n.' - p",,'j /

Q,l -

Figure 5.-Normalized Dru'wdown 11Iethod Without

Technology, July - September, 1965, Montreal

(Pi' - p~,,'j / c"

(7)

qg:!

200

TI ME (hours)
TU1bulenc~.

r.

!.

I.-The well is flowed at a rate qgl, and pressure

and rate data are recorded throughout the
test_ The rate, provided it is a smooth function of time and does not vary rapidly, need
not be strictly constant. For example, flow
through a critical-flow prover generally satisfies this condition.
2_-The well is shut-in to restore the system to
static conditions. Pressure data recorded during this period will provide a build-Up test
from which the initial pressure, PI, can be obtained. The slope of the build-up can be used
to calculate the kh product (7).
3 & 4.-Steps 1 and 2 are repeated for a second rate,
ql::l, and again the pressure and rate data are
recorded throughout.
5.-The turbulence group, B, is calculated from
Equation (7):
ql':l

100

820
910
1050
1250
1430
1580
1630
1670
1750
1770
1810
1820
1900
2090
2090
1920
1920
1960
2060
2090
2090
2170
2210
2290
2330
2330
2330

For finite-acting systems! expressions analogous to

Equation (1), but suitably modified, can be developed.
To calculate formation kh, skin and turbulence, at
least two drawdown tests should be run, each beginning from essentially static initial conditions. The
basic procedure for determining these parameters is
described by Carter, Miller and Riley (6), but has
been expanded here to include the normalized drawdown method:

B ~

20

Pi::!' - pZm: - Bq:!g

p2"1

Q,

11,741,000
11,911,000
12,258,000
12,633,000
12,893,000
13,073.000
13,213,000
13.274.000
13.316.000
13,385.000
13,411,000
13,462,000
13.503,000
13,507,000
13,496,000
13,485,000
13,480,000
13,544.000
13.580,000
13,608,000
13,608,000
13,613,000
13,618,000
13,647,000
13.676,000
13.676,000
13.676.000

1990
1947
1855
1752
1675
1621
1577
1558
1544
1522
1513
1496
1482
1481
1485
1488
1490
1468
1456
1446
1446
1445
1443
1433
1423
1423
1423

~-- .

B - 0.0637 psia'/(Msef/D)'

Pi:!: -

Time
hours

,
:\

-.
t

TABLE II

..

\vhere the flowing bottom-hole pressures, p""n

and pwr2, and the corresponding instantaneous rates, girl and (Jg2, are chosen after the
same elapsed time in each test (i.e., isochro115

;-,

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

nally~.

'"''Ie should point out that in Equahon

(7) both the numerator and denominator involve a difference in t\VQ terms. If the terms
entering either of these differences are of
approximately the same size, the accuracy
of the calculated turbulence group maJo' be limited. Rates can generally be chosen to minimize
this problem.
G.-Using the value of B determined in step 5,
the well'g kh product is calculated by the
normalized method for both drawdown tests
from Equation (5).
7.-Finally, a value of skin is calculated from
Equatio'n (1).
8.-l\'Iore than two drawdowns can be run, as desired. However, each dra'... down must start
from essentially static conditions.
9.-Frequentl.v. at least one flow test is run to
stabilized conditions (i.e.. long enough to allow the pressure disturbance to reach the
external radius of drainage).
The above testing procedure is a form of isochronal
AOF test, so that it is already embodied in current
testing practices. In fact, the four-point isochronal
test. with shut-ins between each flow, can provide four
drawdowns and three build-upg; results, therefore,
can be replicated and thus confirmed. However, pressure and rate data have to be recorded throughout
the tests. rather than just at the end of each flow
pedod,
I

THE FLOW-AFTER-FLD\'V TEST

One current practice in gas-well testing is to flow

the well at four consecuti"e rates, with no shut-in
time between flows. This procedure, usually called
the flow-after-flow test. can give misleading results.
This is illustrated in Figm'e 6. Curve A shows ~'"
AOF curve from a flow-after-flo,... test on an actuClI
well which \\'as producing dry gas and no water. "Vith
the first change to a larger flow prover, the rate increased as expected. Hmo;rever, with successive changes
to still larger flow proYers, the rates decreased. To
,'erify that this reversal effect could result from consecutive flows, a flow-after-flow test was run on the

gas-,,,,'ell simulator. Curve B shows that the simulated

' ....eIl's AOF curve reverses. as did the actual well
curve. As a further check, an isochronal test wa~
run on the simulated 'well, with each flow period beginning from static initial conditions. Curve C repl'C:ll:;ents this case and shows no reversal. In less extreme cases, the flow-after-flow curve may look reUHonable. exhibiting no rever:->al, but may yield an incorrect slope and a misleading AOF.
To analyze flow-after-flow data for kh product,
damage and turbulence would mean using the principle of superposition, In this case, the results would
be less dependable. Furthermore, as some matching
technique ,... ould probably be required, results would
be less directly obtainable than when calculated from
an isochronal test.
DRA\...DOWN TESTING IN OIL AND '~lATE[1. 'VELLS

In this section, we ,... ill show how the normalized

method can also be applied to oil or water wells to
achieve more reliable results than yielded by conventional methods. The deYelopment will parallel the
earlier discussion of gas-well {.!tawdown tests - i.e.,
it will deal first with the equations and method COIlventionally used, then with the modification required
when the rate is changing and, finally, with the resulting normalized method, including an example in,"olving minor rate changes.

Equation (8) describes the pressure drop as a

function of time at a well producing oil or water at a
cO'ilstant rate from a homogeneous hurizontal sy~tem
of uniform thickness. The fluwing fluid is slightly
compressible, has a constant viscosit~l and, becau::le
tllL'bulence is negligible under virtually all opeL'ating
conditions, obeys the Darcy Law.
p. -

1..J-1.2

[l"i =

Here. q

l~~ [112

(In

to

+ O.809l + Sj

(8\

liquid [Jaw r:Ite, res 13/D

dimenc;ionle~s time = r,t/r,,:!
0.00li33k

to

dj[[usi\'it~r =

((liLC

liquid visco<;itr. CD
efrcctivc compressihility. HJ1/vol/psi

and all other terms are as defined previously. A plot

of Pi - p.. . r versus 10glUt yield::; a straight line, and,
from its slope, the permeabilit)-thiclmess pl'oduet CUll
be calculated:
kh

162.6 ~- md-fL
Ill"

where m o is the slope per logarithmic cycle. This i.:'l

the conventional method of drawdown teHt analYHis,
and is subject to large errol'S fol' verr ~light variations in rate.
If the rate is varying, and the rate variations are
not excessively rapid, we can write, as a good approximation,
n, -

~,(~)(t~

1.n.2

l~l [1.'2 (1n tv

+ 0.809) + SI

(/0\

where q(t) is the instantaneolls flow rate. A plot of

(p, - p"r(tJ]/q(t) vel'SllS logp,t yields a ::;traight line.
and. from its slope, the permeability-thickness pruduct
can be calculated:
'0

q g (MMSCF/doy)

Figure 6.-CompuTison of Flow-Alter-Flow and

Isoc!l1'onal Tests.
116

'"

kh

162.6

-"[n,:

( III

where m; is the slope per logarithmic cycle. This is

the normalized method.
The JournClI of CClnadian

Petroleum

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

'" '~_~..!._ ,I II

.---:-.----:
"

q'

--.----

IiI

, ! ; I: ;i: ~ ,ill

0 0 -----:-----

:I,'i,!I1 0

~._--~~

, ,

'--";"

.~looO~

I' :

'I

IlIii!
'-Iii':

I
'

III i'I I III

1'1,1: ,Ill

I~

I,

I ,i

IiI

' III

lll
''---r:
-''-~-;-;--'
i"1~,~====:;-~:'-:' +:1i'im
II
I
! I
1./
-:
I:I
BlI'---t----~--t_'~-':'P--. ,",II
I
I
I
I
I II
1,1
----- - -1-':

-;:; 100,

ii

60

II

I ' Ii
1

'-----'--

:'I_--:-1--+1.--.--.;--_..J'--,-1c-'-+'-j1I'i--,
I I : I
I I' I i 1:1'
TIME

.'---,.

I' " :'1

.,-'1h--',,,,II,,I'j

I , , I I I'

1-+-+-,l-++++++++Wr+Hf---,AC Vrf"f'rf,'{
,,,I---+--i-I+I-+++++lf
1 I I I III
"

,,'

JOT

The improved accuracy of the normalized method

has been demonstrated ,,,ith field data for gas wells

and fol' both gas and oil-well testing with a digital

simulator. The method has also been substantiated on
a theoretical basis_

",

"

CONCLUSIONS

1.-The conventional method of drawdown analysis i5,

in general, unreliable.
2.-The normalized method of drawdown analysis is
considerably more reliable than the conventional
method, and has been verified by field tests on
gas wells, by digital gas-well simulator runs and

by theory.
3.-Reservoir parameters form a better basis than
the AOF plot for determining current and potential gas-well deliverability_ The required parameters, kh, skin and turbulence group, can be
determined from drawdo\vn test.s. At least two
and preferabl}T more such tests should be run_
4.-The practice of running a multiplicity of drawdown tests, separated by shut-in periods, is a form
of isochronal AOF test. Pressure and rate data

should be l'ecol'ded throughout the test rathel' than

just at the end of each flow.
5.-The foul'-point flow-aftel'-flow test, in which the
flows at each rate are consecutive, cannot be relied on for accurate deliver ability estimates.
6.-The normalized method of drawdown analysis can
be applied to oil or water wells_
TechnologYI July _ Septemberl 1965, Montreal

lL",~L-L-'-'
1I--,I-l1.Lll111.!!.l.!
II lLlw".

.'

(::

ACUNOWLEDGMENT

REFERENCES

I!. L.,
VU?UJ J_,

(2)
(3)
(4)

(5)

Conwll, D., Kobayash.i R., Poe~!,ma.nn.

Elenbaas, J., and Wemaug, C., HandJ

F.,
book of Natulal Gas Engineering," New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1959 p_ 436_
Houpeurt, A., "Sur l'Ecoulement des Gas dans les
'Milleux Poreux/' ReVill'> de L'lnstitut Francais du
PetTole, December 1959, p. 1659.
Ib;d, pp. 1658-95.
Rameu, H. J., J?-., IINon-Darcy Flow and Wellbore
Storage Effects in Pressure Build-up and Drawdown
of Gas 'Wells," Jozwn_ of Pet?oleum. Technology, Febl'uary, 1965, PP_ 223-233.
Davies, O. L., "The Design and Analysis of Industrial Experiments," 2nd Ed. London, Oliver and
J

Boyd, 1956.

(6) Ca1te?J R. D., Mille?', S.C., .h.J and Riley, H. G. J

"Determination of Stabilized Gas \Vell Performance

from Short Flow Tests," Jou..?'1~. of PetToleum Technology, June) 1963, pp. 651-658.

(7) Katz, D. L" et al., op cit_, p. 444.

~:.

'.

NOMENCLATURP.

B
c

G
h
k

m
mo

r..

5
T
t

to
z

turbulence group

3.16IxI0-(:!(~zTG

h"

0.00633k
1(:l~C

~g

pSIa:!/(lvIscfjD):!
-r.
- effective compressibility. vol/vol/psi
- specific gravity of gas (~ir = 1.0)
- [ormation thickness. ft
- formation permeability, md
- slope per logarithmic c~rcle of gas-well drawdown plot,
psia:!jcycle
slope per logarithmic cycle of oil-well drawdown plot,
psi/cycle
- initial pressure of system, pSIa
- bottom-hole flowin~ pressure, psia
- average pressure in system, psia
- gas flow rate, Ivlscf/D
- liquid flow rate. res B(D
- well bore radius, ft
- dimensionless skin
- reservoir temperature. "R
- time.davs
- ljt(r,v:! ~ dimensionless time
- gas compresc:;ibility factor
- turbulence factor, ft- I
dlf
"t
0.00633
1 USIVI Y =
II'fl.,; ki'> ,ft"/d
- ay .... Ior gas
=

gas \'iscosity, cp
II'

,ft2jda~r ....

for oil

~
- liquid viscosity, cp
porosity, fraction

117

'

~!i;f'~

The authol'S wish to express their appreciation to the

management of Imperial Oil Limited for permIssion to
present this paper, and also to Mr. D. P. Bossler for his
many valuable suggestions. They are also indebted to
Mr. R. V. M. Zahar for his contributions to the theoretical
development_
(1) Ka.t~~

....

~::.'- .:

Figw'e 8.-Nol'11"zalized DTawd01.0n J.llethod for (],

Si1nulated Oilwell Dra1vdown.

a.

One of the major practical problems of drawdown

testing to determine formation parameters has been
the cost and/or inconvenience involved in maintaining a constant rate. The distortion in pressure caused
by even slight variations in rate can result in wrong
estimates of deliverability when the conventional
method of dra,\;down analysis is used. The normalized
method) which accounts for pressure distortion due
to rate variations) provides an approach that is just
as practical and much more accurate.

c,

I I

;r

TIME (minulul

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

""

:!:,

Figures 7 and 8 are plots of a digitally-simulated

oil-well drawdown test analyzed by the conventional
and normalized methods, respectively. Although the
. rate varies only slightly, its effect is so severe that
the conventional plot is not amenable to analysis. The
normalized method, on the other hand, yields a kh
product of 90 md-ft, whereas the actual value used
in the simulator is 100 md-ft,

'~

-- -ljL
-j

I_--f'-i-!-I-+1-,-+'+H!~t!-H
,I I
:: IIl+Jjj!f---J--+H+++H++H+++tI
,;
I
I
~I<T '4~1--+I-1--i-I-:'-\-I++i'-l\!11,;+ft\+H--pf-iCALcuLATEO,IrI1=90md fI
III! II
1,611111
I
I-+--i1Wl<>I---'~'~/~2.LU+++++H+!+Jjj
I -+1+++:+1+1+
1
ruA

Simulated Oilwell Drawdown.

:,

"

(rninule~J

Figw"e 7.-Conventional Drawdown Plot

.,

--5

': ilill

.~

"

~" =I-~

"I I

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

APPENDIX
HE conditions under which the normalized dra'wdo".-n method is valid can be determined using
slightly compressible flo,\, theory_ These results can
then be extended to the case of compressible flow by
the nm" familiar method of linearizing the differential equation of gas flow. To account for turbulence,
we assume. after Houpeurt, that it stabilizes quickly
following rate changes, and can be included <is an additional pressure-squared drop term (see EqwLNon
11) in the text).
Consider a single \'....ell producing, at a varying rate.
q(t) barrels per cia)! from a homogeneous isotropic infinite system. The flm\'ing fluid has a constant \'iscosity and compre~sibilitJf. and is slightly compre~
sible. The variiition in pressure drop, p, - p"r, with
time is

Pi-p"l(tl

It

e-"
x',,

e-"

--dx =

--(m -l)!

m:;-l

j::.... 1

(_lll(m_j_lll

(-U',,-I_J

x"'-J
(..1-7)

e-:<_ dx

(m-l)!

For m=2. u.sing the product rule

Suppose the formula i.s true for m. Then. u~ing

the product rule with
II = e-~

and dv = x -I

III

rl)

dx

(A-II

q(-:)e

A =

where

Before integrating (A-G) term by term, we prove

the following b.y induction:

CO,

- - ell'
x'"

70.6 fl
kh

\Ve assume that the flow rate, , q (.), can be described 01' at least closel.r approximated by a polynomial of the fOl'm
n

... ~

In

e-~

a,-:i

'"

m! j

1=0

U-ll~

c-'
x

--ch

and the prouf of (A-7) is complete.

,~

(_II''''J-I-I

Before evaluating the integral on the right side of

Equation (1), it is convenient to write q(.) in the
form
q(-:) =

.;r,(t -

-:t i

i=o

Thus. the integral in equation (A-61 becomes

By expanding equation (A-3) in powers of T and

eqlwting coefficients in expressions (A-2) and tA-3),
we obtain the system of (n+1) equations for the
(n+ll unknowns, a.,:
'Z"
:7

11 _1

= (-Il"a n
= (_1)"-1 (a,,_l

:':,,-:!'

7" = a"

1""., +

(I'll) la"., +
(I'2 )] I-a"
_, If
I
[( I'1 )(1'--1)

I-l)"'

+ all + a~t:!

+ a..

-;--

_1

II-L

+ alit"

= (-1)1

i:I"

Ei (-~/l)

'[

+ c-=I

,-

l\

n..~
. :. :;-i (j+i
) ta,,,
,
.
L=O

(,1-11

In more general form

~j

~J ;.'L

+ nta ll )

I.--t-s)

"
+

(.'l-Sl

Ei (- ;ItJ

Substituting (A-3) into (A-l). \ve can write

!J,-p,,,tt)= A
where

'l

'Ve note first that, from equations (A-2) and (A-t) ,

I'
."

.:I,(t- -:I'e

...J

1=0

::;0

~ = r".:!/4" .

that (A-G) becomes

This can be expressed as

Pi - P"r(O

If we let

~:l'
i=()

{o l

Jo

I'

-Ei( (l_-:/i.-l C

A ~ :z,~i
i=11

t--:

~/t,

c!-:

(fl-6)

+ Ei( -

;/0

I'

"

(-11"

i!

;I,~'

The Journal of Canadien Petroleum

118

POOR IMAGE DUE TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT QUALITY

and

or,
p, - p",(t)

q(t)

-,It

(_I)I+;(j_I)!

I.

i}

(A-9)

Equation (A-9) has the same form as the solution

for a co"nstant rate except for the additional terms on
the right-hand side. \Ve will now examine these additional terms and compare them to the first term.
The first additional term is

"
T

-</t
_e__

1=

CZa

:'

i
~

"

;'1'"

i=1

j=l

(-l)i+j(j-l)! (t/~)j

'Ve can rewrite this as a pO\ver series in

lows:
T1

.'

e-~/t
lZo

(_l)iH

i=l

(~/t)'-I

j=i

(j~i)!

(A-10)

~/t

as fol-

lZjti

(A-ll)

J.

\Ve want to know under what conditions T. will be

small with respect to the first term of equation (AThe coefficients of the power series are

.-,/t

(A-12)

IZJ

J.

As ~/t ~ 0.01, a sufficient condition for the convergence of the series in (A-ll) is
C, ::; 1

"

-t'

(j-i)!

1=i

lZD

-i,

n
~

(_1);+1 e_

Ci =

(_4-13)

Vie can write e-~/t.=:::::: 1,

agam because
T. will then be small if the term
n

(j-i)!

:E

.r

~/t

:::; 0.01.

. ti

(A-I'I)

lZJ

J.

=i

(A-20)

< <

(A-2I)

Hence, T .. is also small with respect to the first

term on the-right-hand side of (A-9).
For small rate variations, we can then write, from
(A-9), that
Pi -

p",(t)

q(t)

=A [

-Ei(-Ut)]

(A-22l

Or. using the log approximation to the Ei function

and employing standard nomenclature,

9).

"

Ei(-</t)T,'

T2'

(_1)'+0
- r
a:i~

i=l

:to

where

(t/'l;]

.
n
+ -1 El(-~/t):E

0.01, so that

T,

A {[ -Ei(-,/t) ] , + _ e :E
lZu
i ~ 1

,~
[ a,,"
IJ =

~/t:;"

is small.
For i = I, Tt' is less than the fractional variation
in rate throughout the test, 'which is less than unity.
For i ~ 2, a sufficient condition on T { is

Pi -p"r(t)

q(t)

~ 14~,;"

[iOn tD

+ 0.809)

(A-23)

which is the normalized drawdown equation for

slightly compressible Darcy flow.
It is noteworthy that the preceding general argument is considerably strengthened' for the special
case of an exponential-like decay in rate, such as often
Occurs in practice (e_g., producing a gas well through
a critical-flow prover). Another special case of interest is that of a well producing at a constant pressure drawdown in an infinite system (constant terminal pressure case). The flow rate decreases slowly
but continualJy and, over a sufficiently long period,
the percentage change in rate is large. However,
despite the large total change in rate. the normalized
drawdown method yields an accurate slope on the
drawdown plot. This agrees with the theoretical discussion which indicates that restrictions on the applicability of the normalized method depend on the
functional form of the varying ra te and not simply on
the total rate variation.

:;;: .

..

(A-IS)

where

"

; ,.

(A-I6)

Condition (A-15) will be met in practice for a large

variety of functional forms for q (t). In such cases,
the first additional term on the right-hand side of
(A-9) will be small with respect to unity, and hence
with respect to -Ei ( - I;/t).
WINESTOCK

Now we examine the second additional term:

T. ~ Ei(-,/t)
-

a"

n
~
i = 1

( _l)i+l

(A-l7)

i!

We can rewrite (A-17) as

n

T. _ Ei( - ,It)
-

q(t)

( _l)i+.
.,
u:,t i

I;
i

..

(~/t)i

(A-I8)

But
1
--

q(t) i

n
)"

!Ziti

q (t

0) -

q(t)

q(t)

< <

(A-19)

'"

COLPITTS

Alvin G_ Winestock received his B.A.Se. degree in enginee.ing physics from the University of British Columbia in 1958.
He joined Imperial Oil Limited upon graduation and worked
as a research engineer in their Production Research Laboratory, Calgary, until mid-1965. He was recently assigned to
their Co/gary Regional Engineering Department.

';

Gordon P. Colpitts received his B,E. degree in chemical engineering fram N.S. Tech. in 1954 and his M.5. and Ph.D.
degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1955 and 1959. Since then, he has worked for Imperial
Oil Limited as a research engineer in waterfloading and natural gas reservoir engineering.

: ....
;: ..-!

r-

!".- -:

Technology, July - September, 1965, Montreal

119